kgordon420 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 13:14:49 EST 2010
Oops XO-2 should say XO 1.5, my bad.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Kevin Gordon <kgordon420 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't really complaining. Just wanted upstream people to know in case
> they were interested.
> For clarity, The 686 8n-1 openssl gets installed on both the XO-1 and the
> XO-1.5. After a fresh install:
> Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-1 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but
> installs the 586 version
> Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-2 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but
> installs the 686 version
> In our deployments we always try to do it in two steps, a yum update
> download-only to an SD card, then yum localinstall from the card, to save
> internet usage.
> In this two-step localinstall scenario, the XO-1 updated chosen (586)
> actually refuses to update the installed older, but 686, version.
> On the XO 1.5, there is no issue - the 686 8n-2 updates the installed 686
> Peter, absoulutely the right rpm switches can be used instead of yum to get
> the desired one there when not doing a direct update. The other yum methods
> are dangerous or ineffective since on the XO-1,a yum reinstall wont pick up
> the original package, and a vanilla yum remove would delete about 3.5
> million dependencies. That said, if I copy the 686 8n-2 rpm over to the XO-1
> downloaded updates on the SD, when doing the localinstall, it works fine.
> So, I am not complaining, I was more or less curious as to why a 686 was in
> there at all, since all the rest of the stuff int the package list seems to
> be 586, and there is a 586 openssl available. Perhaps, I too much love
> simplicity :-)
> But, in conclusion, I'm all good here. If there is a specific bias for one
> or the other (586 or 686) package, just let me know and I can make both the
> XO-1 and the XO 1.5 happy with that version.
> PS: Martin, we haven't deployed 852 in Kenya so I hadn't seen this before
> in 10.1.2. We'll be upgrading them all from a mixed XO-1 set of 711 and
> 802; and the 1.5's with 205/206 both of which never had the 686 installed.
> So, in preparation of when we go back in March, we're working with
> 10.1.3/3xx assuming that it will be the new signed build generation.
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Martin Langhoff
>> <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Kevin Gordon <kgordon420 at gmail.com>
>> >> Any reason that the openssl 0.9.8n-1.fc11 is of the 686 architecture as
>> >> bundled in the os360 packages? Causes a bit of grief on localinstalls
>> > This was also on 10.1.2 as can be seen in the link below . The
>> > compaints are bogus my understanding is that -- Fedora keeps its i686
>> > builds compatible with Geode. Why is yum getting confused I dunno --
>> > perhaps it's reading the kernel uname. On XO-1 builds, the kernel is
>> > i586.
>> > cheers,
>> I don't think the change to the rpm arch file that made geode i686
>> capable was made until post F-11 (F-12 from mem) so I think you need
>> to add a command to rpm to use the i686 version or install the
>> i586/i386 variant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel